It emerges from last evening's debate that two of the 10 Republican presidential candidates--Mike Huckabee and Tom Tancredo---don't believe in the theory of evolution. These aren't the big hitters on the GOP side, but it reveals an interesting under-current of anti-Darwin sentiment among Republicans and conservatives.
I know many on the right, especially the Christian right, are scared of Darwin. Even intellectual magazines like Commentary seem to have adopted an anti-Darwin position. This has enabled many on the left, as well as the professional atheists like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, to portray conservative Christians as yahoos. Sometimes we do come across that way.
In my forthcoming book "What's So Great About Christianity" I will show why, contrary to the claims of Dawkins and company, Darwinian evolution does not undermine the design argument for God. On the contrary, the latest findings of modern science have greatly strengthened that argument. Paley was right and Dawkins is wrong. Fasten your seat-belt and wait for my book, or, if you are a real fanatic, pre-order it here.
But if Christian anxiety is misplaced, conservatives are even further off the mark. That's because Darwin's theory actually supports conservative positions in all kinds of interesting ways. First, Darwin gives a dark and selfish view of human nature, which is why we need a tough foreign policy to deal with bad guys who cannot be talked out of their badness--even if U.N. cocktails are served. In addition, the selfishness in human nature warrants a system called capitalism which channels this self-orientation toward the material betterment of society.
It gets better. Darwin shows that social institutions like the family are founded in the deep human drive to reproduce and care for the young. Reproduction and self-perpetuation are the natural root of human family arrangements, which cannot be redefined as mechanisms of "self-fulfillment" without jeopardizing their biological basis and function. Consider a simple statistic: when divorced moms remarry or have boyfriends in the house, those surrogate parents are vastly more likely to physically and sexually abuse the children than their own parents. Darwinian theory supplies the reason: the real parent shares the same genes as the child and this forms a bond that dispels sexual attraction and discourages abuse. "Family values" are supported by modern evolutionary biology.
I'm not saying embrace Darwinian evolution because it is politically useful. I am saying don't hastily reject a theory that has a lot of evidence going for it when it has the added merit of being politically congenial.
Reader Comments ( Page 5 of 11)
61. Peter writes: "I just realize that 51% of this country does not believe in evolution, and I've had arguments with many creationists before. If I don't insult you you won't debate me and you won't learn anything."
Peter, its never a debate with them, and they'll never learn. For example, they do not understand someone like me who has taken what he believes is valid from several religions, left the rest, and made that his belief. Their sheeplike adherance to every single word in the Bible precludes them from understanding the validity of evolution and how evolution could be a mere glimpse of something beyond our capability of understanding. If someone is not lockstep in agreement with their belief in every single word of the Bible, a man made book, their idea of a debate is to say you have no right to reference the Bible, in its inaccuracies, even if parts of it appeal to you such as doing unto others as they do unto you (or in other religions phrased as the more punitive concept of karma.) SINCE WHEN DID RIGHT WING RELIGIOUS FANATICS OWN THE COPYRIGHT TO THE BIBLE?
The bad news is that these stone hearted small minded people are at present trying to culturally colonize everyone else. The good news is that "everyone else" includes a lot more people than them. The Evangelicals turned out in record numbers in the 2006 election and were rejected by a majority of Americans. They are not 51% of the nation - that number belongs to the number of registered Democrats who applaud you standing up to them.
Instead, the Evangelicals are a minority that itself is splintering. I can't remember the exact percentage, but something like 1/3 of them splintered off from their colonization platform and started worrying about things that matter like global warming and human rights.
With the last election, their effort to turn the USA into the EVA (Evangelical States of America) came to a halt. In order to maintain our constitutional separation of church and state and stop the madness, the only way to really deal with them is to make sure and show up to vote.
Plus, the glass is either half empty or half full - and its more fun to look at it as half full. Keeping that in mind, if you wanted to buy a horror fiction book you'd have to pay for it. Here, you can get a horror fiction ongoing serial right in this blog for free, and all you have to do is hit close when the ad fills the whole page.
Phil at 7:29PM on May 4th 2007
62. @ Steelman (comment #7)
You say, "Of course Darwin had a theory, however the Genisis account in the Bible has as much validity as a theory,.."
Every branch of science invariably points to Darwin's Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.
So, Steelman, you are saying that this huge body of knowledge, which can indeed be picked at by some religious nay-sayers, who's job it is to pick-pick-pick, in an effort to resurrect their God, is not really pointing towards Darwin's Theory?
Not only that, you say that this...
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and DARKNESS was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 ¶ And God said, Let there be LIGHT:
.......the idea that God made the ENTIRE UNIVERSE... in the DARK... must be seen as being a reasonable alternative...
...simply because what... because you 'NO-LIKEE' science, or because you're no good at science.
pboyfloyd at 7:37PM on May 4th 2007
63. pboyfloyd writes: "You said, "My question on that is if the doctrine of survival of the fittest is true, how did George Bush become President and what does that say about our chances for national survival?"
Sociopaths are heartless bastards who have no feeling of empathy. They are insanely power-hungry personifications of evil. 'Emperor' Bush took control of government using religion as a tool. . . . He piddled around victimizing every enemy available... atheists, the elderly, gays... it doesn't matter, no enemy is too small."
Pboyfloyd, I totally agree! In fact, it was exactly what I was thinking when I asked my question. I won't even get into the questionable aspects of 9-11 shown, in one of many places, in "Loose Change, Second Edition" because its unrelated to the typical outrageous ulra right wing Fundamantalist response to something as basic as evolution. They have made mess of EVERYTHING while in power, and, as usual, we have to clean it up.
There has been a marriage and a child has been born: Fundamentlist Christianity entered into wedlock with the Republican Party and became the new "American Nazi Party." They've upped the volume multiple decibels because they see their grip on America's secular government coming to an end. We just have to consistently hit (D) on the voting machine (and of course show up to do it).
Phil at 7:47PM on May 4th 2007
64. @ CAF (comment #46)
You say,"The person who says that the evolution of man from simpler forms..."
You're absolutely right, CAF, but who are you talking to?
Do you think that a christian who has been sitting in front of his trusted clergyman listening to tales of how scientists are not reasonable(conciliatory) in their demand that people be reasonable(logical, rational.)
Reasonable(logical, rational) commenters are by definition not reasonable(conciliatory) people when it comes to Darwin's Theory.
Darwin's Theory is diminishing their God, and THAT is NOT reasonable(conciliatory) at all, it seems spiteful, hateful... satanic.
Would you take away a baby's blanket?
You MUST be an unfeeling sociopath, like they paint you, because, no matter how reasonable(logical, rational) you are just not reasonable(conciliatory).
pboyfloyd at 8:22PM on May 4th 2007
65. to jeni....creation itself is the dilemma, isn't it? We seem to need to define the moment Existance came into being. Well, the argument starts there, doesn't it? By calling it God, we give ourselves an image that doesn't frighten as much as a Void does. However, I always see the Q entity from Star Trek whenever someone tells me that God created us, and that always makes me laugh! Darwin's theory is more interesting than just "God made man".
dorothy at 8:52PM on May 4th 2007
66. @ phil (comment #61)
You say, "They have made mess of EVERYTHING while in power, and, as usual, we have to clean it up."
But they don't see it as a mess at all. In their eyes Bush is the conciliatory one, the reasonable one. He gave them Faith-based Initiatives. Wasn't that nice... he didn't even pick just his brand of faith, nope, it was ALL inclusive.
(except those reality-based atheists that do nothing but belittle the one TRUE GOD!!! Serves them right!)
If you're just going to base you're entire life on reality.. well, pfft!!... you have no purpose.
'Emperor' Bush has recruited all people of faith as his minions in his evil sociopathic plan... which is self-aggrandization.
It might not be reasonable(logical, rational), that is beside the point, it IS reasonable(conciliatory) and inclusive(of people of faith) and tolerant(of every person of faith).
Now, I ask you, phil, "What reasonable, inclusive, tolerant person could say that Bush's plan was a mess? Heck, we don't even know the plan, it's a secret from Al-Queda, already."
Anyone who knows the 'plan' must be reality-based and therefore can be dismissed out-of-hand.
Keep the faith dude!!
pboyfloyd at 9:08PM on May 4th 2007
67. "I guarantee you any "hole" in the core basis of the theory you can cite I can disprove in about ten seconds."
First of all, I do, sort of, believe in evolution, in that I believe that humans and other creatures evolved. However, I, personally, believe that this evolution occurred under the guidance of God. I.e., evolution was and is a way that God chooses to create.
However, if I were to try to find a "hole" in the theory of evolution - and this might not even be one - I think that my attempt would be to hypothesize: the theory of evolution does not fully account for the development of species, because physical evolution alone does not explain . . . consciousness.
This seems to me to be a glaring omission, as consciousness or the mind is clearly an important part of human beings. In addition, there appears to be evidence that many animals are also conscious . . . maybe even some invertebrates.
So, does the theory of evolution explain consciousness?
I do not think it does at present, because evolution deals with the development of physical processes, and science has never really explained how consciousness could be the result of physical processes. Many believe that consciousness is the result of the moving electrical charges and chemical reactions of the brain - but it has never been explained how that could be. Moving electrical charges and chemical reactions appear in natural phenomena - but it does not appear that these phenomena are conscious.
Hence, it is not even established whether consciousness is the result of physical processes . . . and not something non-physical like some sort of mind or spirit. Therefore, that appears to me to be a gap in evolutionary theory.
RR at 10:40PM on May 4th 2007
68. @ jeni (comment #64.)
You say, "POE-LEASE! Haha! Darwin "theory" SCARE people? Fist off, it is JUST that, A THEORY. I would dare you to research creation as well."
Maybe you're right jeni, maybe this is as far as we go... scrapping over who's version of God is the baddest of the bad.
Did a little research on creation... I understand that, according to this theory, God did it all!
He created the 'serpent' and the 'tree of life', went for a smoke break or something... came back and was pissed off at them kids for listening to that 'serpent', that He allowed in to the garden.
He didn't think to keep the 'serpent' out but he sure as hell kicked the kids out and they weren't getting back in.
Punished the 'serpent' too. Made it crawl on it's belly... you know, like a serpent.
In short, BIG DADDY got mad when the kids listened to the snake so he kicked them out on their ass.
And you believe this because you can't be bothered to look up the two distinctly different definitions of the word 'theory' in any good dictionary.
All these genetics students, biology students, paleontology students, medical students and on and on, every single science, are wasting their time studying all those sciences which support Darwin's Theory because... well, because POE-LEASE!!
Get back to 'spring-break' land KIDS... raptures just around the corner... why sweat it?
pboyfloyd at 11:03PM on May 4th 2007
69.
Jeni-
How do you move your comment up like that? It used to be comment 57 but now it's 64 and now my response to it @ 58 makes no sense. What a strange thing to do, did you not like my response or something? I certainly hope you didn't do it for dishonest reasons.
Peter at 12:08AM on May 5th 2007
70. Peter,
I received my homework assignment and now I have to go to school. Of course it's gonna take me awhile, so I'll get back to you, thanx.
Cdalealden at 1:47AM on May 5th 2007
71. Cdalealden,
No response yet ... to post #3. I don't know why. Maybe you've already found the Cdalealdenicus and are busy getting published. Congratulations.
Regarding Darwin being "exaulted": it's not true. Many of his ideas are accepted but some (such as his gene analog): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heredity have been canned. Unlike with religion, the core books of science are often altered or cast aside in years or decades instead of, as with religion, in centuries, millenia, or never. Plenty of religionists will try to square the conflicting messages of the Bible, etc. but NO biologist thinks Darwin's work doesn't need to be altered by Mendel's.
lil_turk at 7:38AM on May 5th 2007
72. The word theory has several definitions. Creationists have difficulty selecting the right one. When scientists say the theory of evolution, they are using #5 (from Merriam Webster). When creationist apply definition #6, they make themselves look foolish. Some of you could only look more foolish if you used, say, a banana as proof of God's creation.
5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena
6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption
Mike at 2:34PM on May 5th 2007
73. @ mike.
Christians will take that...5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena ...
and twist it to this... 5(christianized): a deniable or satanically acceptable general principle or other body of principles offered to deny GOD..
Plus the untwisted version is still unreasonable because it is not conciliatory.
Meaning number 6 IS on the other hand reasonable because it IS conciliatory.
Am I getting this right, Christians?? Just shout out anything that I'm getting wrong...
Science and God do not mix. Any attempt to mix them must reasonably(logically, rationally) come down on the side of science. Conversely, any attempt to mix them must come to unreasonable(unconciliatory) conclusions. Science deals with the natural, reality-based world, while religion deals with the supernatural(unnatural), faith-based world.
"Even though Darwins' Theory says nothing about the existence or non-existence of God it is unreasonable(unconciliatory) with religion... therefore theists must say that it must be wrong."-pboyfloyd
In 28 words I have explained all creationist and Intelligent Design argument. Anything added to this is simply for the sake of creating confusion.
pboyfloyd at 4:24PM on May 5th 2007
74. There are two ideas that keep religions alive and prevent believers from accepting evolution (which, by the way, is both a Theory and a fact). The first idea is that we, as individual beings, simply cannot possibly cease to exist. Death is both frightening and confusing, so it's not surprising that many or most of us simply deny it. The second idea is that we had to exist in the first place. While the first idea compels the theist to look forward to heaven and fear hell (or whatever), and the various rulebooks (Bible, Koran, etc.) serve as guidelines for how to go about the business of existence, that second idea forces people into a way of thinking that goes like this: 'Because I (or humanity or flagella or bunny rabbits) had to exist, the number of steps that would have been been required for this to come about via evolution and other material events––the odds of it all working out in this way––are simply too slim to be an "accident" or driven by the environment and natural selection.' Well, therein lies the problem. You, your mom and dad, your dog, your back yard, your street, your language, your loves and hopes and fear, your species and all other species, your planet.....NONE of it had to exist. If your perspective on life begins each and every time with this idea that you were destined to exist, and that everything in Earth's history was leading to this moment for a "reason," then OF COURSE you are going to find the odds way too slim to be believable.
An analogy: You roll the dice ten times, and you get snake eyes each time. You calculate the odds of that happening, and you think 'Wow, those are some bad odds.' But instead of leaving it there and chalking it up to luck––which is all it is––you decide that you absolutely were destined to roll ten snake eyes in a row, and therefore something magical must be afoot. This is the primary objection that people have to evolution: 'The odds are just so slim that things would've worked out this way in such a chaotic universe.' Well, yeah. But only because you are calculating the odds of ONE OUTCOME. If you analyze or interpret the universe in this way, everything will seem like a miracle.
Until people realize that everything exists only because it can, not because it had to, they will never be able to absorb or understand or accept evolution as a fact of life or a scientific theory.
tinisoli at 4:57PM on May 5th 2007
75. While I am an atheist, I don't agree that religious people can not also be scientific people. (That may not be what you meant anyway.) So many people here have shouted out that evolution is JUST A THEORY. By doing so they immediately prove that they're completely and totally ignorant of evolution and science in general. Obviously, they're just repeating the ignorance they've heard from their pastors. I'm not trying to be condescending here. I mean ignorant (lacking knowledge) not stupid. The definitions from Merriam Webster probably still haven't cleared things up for some. A scientific fact is an objective, verifiable and repeatable observation. Evolution in this regard is a fact! The occurance of evolution has been observed and verified. Now then, the theory of evolution explains how evolution occurs. A theory is as high up as you can go in science in explaining facts. The theory of evolution has more evidence piled up in its favor than any other scientific theory, but we're still building on this body of knowledge. You may, if you wish, put your fingers in your ears and repeat Genesis over and over in between LA LA LA LA LA's. That wouldn't change anything any more than not believing in Quantum theory would make your CD player stop working.
I really don't care if people want to diminish their lives and the lives of their children by ignoring science in favor of the ramblings of some bronze age sheep herders and fishermen. I do care when they want to force my children to learn their faith in a science class. I don't try to force myself into a Sunday school to teach evolution.
Mike at 5:26PM on May 5th 2007